Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Russia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Russia AND China - The Two Are Allied
HiloBill    5/13/2005 5:17:09 PM
I have posted at another subforum here never realizing that a "Russia Discussion Board" existed. Most all my posts were related to Russia. As I had explained at the other sub-forum, I believe Russia (and China) pose a lethal threat to America and the rest of the West. The website I had been working on for a couple of months is now completed: http://www.thefinalphase.com It is totally commerical free and no money is made there - it is solely for the purpose of raising awareness of the aforementioned threat. Below is my introduction to the site: "The Final Phase" Thesis An Introduction Russia and China are not our friends. They are not our true partners in the war on terror or in the world of free-trade. They engage the West as partners for now while it is to their advantage, but only as a means to an end. Conventional wisdom concludes that Russia and China "need" the West for their long-term national interests and prosperity. They do not; there are other avenues. Today, we establish joint intelligence operations with Russia's FSB (former KGB) in the war on terror and consider them to be full - "need to know" - partners and share our intelligence with them. This is a dangerous partnership. We invite China as a go-between partner in negotiating with North Korea to cajole them to abandon their nuclear program. We entrust China to act in good faith on our behalf when in fact they are more apt to manipulate the tension using North Korea as a potential diversion ploy in sync with their future military designs against Taiwan. Contrary to Beijing?s pronouncements, they are not concerned about Korea?s saber rattling; they welcome it and use it. Russia and China?s continuing modernization of weapon systems - especially strategic - and buildup of military might is rationalized and explained away by sophisticated, hopeful analyses in the West. However, such analyses fall short of adequately assessing their true threat and intentions. It appears no one dares say or even suggest what could be behind their growing military posture and mutual relationship. Besides, it is now a universally accepted notion that terrorism poses the largest and most imminent threat to the West. Whatever threat Russia and China may pose in the future it has taken a back seat to the more immediate concern of terrorism. (Ironically, there is a distinct possibility that today's terrorism may be interrelated to - part and parcel of - coordinated efforts and influence of Russia and China in the form of asymmetrical and proxy warfare against the West. For example, see Drugs, Russia & Terrorism and China's Military Planners Took Credit for 9/11.) Although masked to varying degrees, Russia and China are hostile toward the West and are jointly aligned with an objective to permanently end the West's "hegemony." The United States and Great Britain have abandoned their Cold War posture and are restructuring their intelligence organizations and concepts compelled by the new threat posed by terrorism. Defense is likewise restructuring and abandoning many of its heavy war-fighting concepts and components. It appears to be beyond the comprehension of Western intelligence that Russia and China may be acting in collusion and coordination against the West. Our preconceived notions about their supposed "primordial distrust" of one another tends to render this concern moot. We view Russia and China as two, distinctly separate nations pursuing their own national interests. But, what if Western intelligence is wrong? Less then two months before the 9/11 attacks, Russia and China signed a treaty in Moscow, on 16 July 2001, which may contain what some intelligence analysts suspect are secret military codicils beyond its overt provisions. However, even its overt language clearly indicates Russia will join China militarily should an "aggressor" interfere with its "internal affairs" over the issue of Taiwan. What are the ramifications of a militarily unified Russia and China to the world's balance of power? Has this been seriously considered by Western intelligence? At this late stage of "the final phase" plans of Russia and China, it may be too late for the West to awaken in time to thwart the emerging threat of their covert strategic alliance - time is running out. "The Final Phase" The threat posed by Russia and China - which trumps the threat of terrorism - does not originate in their alliance of 16 July 2001. The threat goes back much further than that. In 1961, a KGB major defected from Russia and unsuccessfully tried to warn Western intelligence of a long-range strategic deception planned against the West. The defector was Anatoliy Golitsyn. He said that Russia and China would feign a split between themselves in order to work a "scissors strategy" against the West. Confident that the West would try to take advantage of an apparent split between them, they pursued myriad ploys - including border cl
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12   NEXT
HiloBill    RE:Russia AND China - The Two Are Allied   5/16/2005 1:58:05 AM
Site updated 15 May 05
 
Quote    Reply

On Watch    RE:Russia AND China - The Two Are Allied   5/16/2005 3:19:43 AM
That's quite an effort 'Bill! It'll take some time to work through all of your info but for the moment...I I see that Kofi is in the News http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-05-15-annan-iran_x.htm Warning President Bush that the Security Council might deadlock if asked to punish Iran for its nuclear program. Suggesting that China and Russia, which have strong economic ties to Iran, might veto any sanction on Iran. And worse that should the US/Bush push the Iran issue to "deadlock", future non-proliferation efforts might be stymied. Other than the obvious lame duck Kofi -- twisting in the wind trying to divert attention away from his & UN foibles -- would a China/Russia alliance reveal itself in the form of a Veto in the Security Council? Especially on such a HOT BUTTON issue as the Iranian Nuclear fuel issue? If they do, what would such an open declaration of anti-US policy portend? Just wondering... Let's Roll
 
Quote    Reply

HiloBill    RE:Russia AND China - The Two Are Allied   5/16/2005 10:07:22 AM
On Watch, Thanks for the kind remarks about the site. It represents over 16 years of being "on watch" about the strategic goings-on b/w Russia and China (et. al.). You asked: "...would a China/Russia alliance reveal itself in the form of a Veto in the Security Council? Especially on such a HOT BUTTON issue as the Iranian Nuclear fuel issue? If they do, what would such an open declaration of anti-US policy portend?" IMO, some of the major problems with Western analyses: 1. We think others think like us (e.g., motivations of national interests, economics, etc.). 2. Our time-horizons are relatively short-spanned, whereas Eastern strategic thinking is long-term. 3. Perceptions and concepts between East and West also limit our analyses, especially when dialectics and deception are employed. A China/Russia veto in the Security Council at the UN would not likely reveal any significant alliance that would set off red flags, because it's already presumed to be an "economic" issue as even quoted in the linked piece itself: "Suggesting that China and Russia, which have strong economic ties to Iran." While we think Russia and China are acting out of national interests of economics, we fail to see the strategic implications that there may be more underfoot. There may be some in our intelligence community (IC) who SUSPECT something else may be underfoot, but I think such notions would not fit the mold of the established, institutionalized concepts and notions. Despite all the supposed lessons learned in the wake of 9/11 and the pronouncements that followed about right and wrong IC thinking (judging by our nation's own policies, comments made by those with the IC, etc.) it appears that the IC still suffers from the very human tendencies of group-think, not using imaginative thinking, thinking within the box, and proofferings to above bosses of safe, uncontroversial, non-risky intelligence analyses and assessments.
 
Quote    Reply

displacedjim    RE:Russia AND China - The Two Are Allied...   5/16/2005 10:47:34 AM
... and are now doing what? Displacedjim
 
Quote    Reply

HiloBill    RE:Russia AND China - The Two Are Allied...   5/16/2005 1:30:38 PM
DJ, Good hearing from you again! Sorry, but I don't follow: "... and are now doing what?" I'm not sure what you're referring to specifically. HB
 
Quote    Reply

displacedjim    RE:Russia AND China - The Two Are Allied...   5/16/2005 3:41:38 PM
Well, I guess I meant that I've seen quite a few posts here and at TFP talking all about the Sino-Soviet/Russian links over the last 40 years (and of course they extend back to the 1930s or maybe even 1920s). Swell. Obviously these two countries have been more allied than enemy over that time. What does it mean for us today? Are they practicers of strategic deception? Of course. Is there significant level of collusion between Russia and China today? Well, they're certainly closer to being buddies with each other than either of them are with us. No one I know in the intelligence community thinks otherwise. Contrary to your unsupported assertions, we still keep close tabs on Russia and China all the time, 24/7. In fact, we undoubtedly are watching China FAR more today than ever before. My unit still publishes reports on Russian or Chinese new radars or modified aircraft or the latest test results on a missile or whatever every week. Reports on new construction at Podunkski Air Base or training activity in the newest Chinese fighter regiment come out daily. We are in their chili every day. You've presented more than enough historical background to make a case for strategic deception and collusion. Now what? What about it? What does that mean they are doing today? And with what are they going to do it? Where is what they're going to use? If all you're saying is that Russia and China as nations are "still" a threat, you are not telling DoD anything it doesn't already understand perfectly well. Maybe there are American citizens who are ignorant of the potential danger, but the intelligence community is not. Now if you want to start talking about specifically how they can manifest their threat, then I'd be happy to suggest my opinions, similar to the exchanges we've had before. I suspect, however, that's where we'll boil down to the "I say they don't have what they'd need to conquer us, you say maybe they do but it's all hiding somewhere that we never detected," and we'll reach an impass. Are they a threat? Yes. However, they're basically a potential threat, rather than a present threat. The only exception to this is nuclear exchange: Russia could fry us, and even China could hurt us horribly--just like they both could do for decades past, most likely for many decades to come, and maybe for the rest of our life span. It really doesn't matter in and of itself whether Russia and China are run by scheming commies bent on our destruction--if they never act on it. We already assume Russia and China are threat nations that must be watched. The important part is how can they hurt us, what indications are there that they are about to try it, and how should/have we prepared to counter anything they might try. Displacedjim
 
Quote    Reply

glenn239    Paranoia is not a foriegn policy.   5/21/2005 11:01:45 AM
Perhaps one of the best progenitors of modern American policy should/could be that of the British Empire during its decline and fall. I?m not suggesting that we?ll end up sharing the same fate (we being Canada and its puppy-dog loyal American sidekick, of course), merely that the British had to negotiate their ship of state through a superficially similar global scenario of rapidly shifting balances of power. Prior British policy seems to suggest a number of potential pitfalls, as well as doctrines that may be worthy of adaptation for the United States in the coming century. First and foremost being that the Germanophobia and perception of a hostile agenda within the halls of power of Kaiser Wilhelm?s government led London down a dangerous and wholly avoidable path to ruin. A less fancy motto would be ?better the devil you know than the devil you don?t?. IMO, conspiracy paranoia had led London into patterns of behaviour that were almost entirely counterproductive to the actual interests of the government. A few examples: 1) Reversing British policy regarding the partition of the Ottoman Empire. 2) Supporting the powers aiming to destabilize or destroy the Austro-Hungarian Empire (which was the most natural Great Power ally of Britain on the planet). 3) Blindly supporting French and Russian ambitions everywhere that they clashed with Germany?s, without regard for the real interests of the parties involved. 4) Refusing to sign a political treaty with Germany. The list goes on. For the United States today, the first question of business is what the purpose of having a foreign policy is. The British provide a positive role model of a doctrine both explicit and concise. Specifically; London?s policy was tailored to allow the economic domination of the formal and informal markets and territories of the Empire with the minimal amount of friction from other powers. Their failure is also illuminating. Balance of power tactics to prevent an economic hegemony in Europe helped promote a period of global instability that was beyond the resources of the Empire to survive. First, does America have a foreign policy doctrine, and second, does it adhere to the real interests of the United States? If Britain is a viable precedent, the question of premier importance is whether the vital objective for Washington is global preeminence, or is it global stability? As demonstrated by the British Empire 1900-1945, it is difficult (if not impossible) to have both: the former can demand the latter. A practical application would be policy against China; the example of Germany suggests it?s better to deal with a reasonable government, flaws and all, rather than destabilize it and then have to fight a radical, murderous regime later. It is difficult to imagine a less likely coalition of enemy powers than China and Russia, which have virtually nothing in common save for a fear of the United States. Therefore, I can?t imagine how or why this particular pair ?must? pose a strategic menace to our interests, save for the possibility that western policy corners them both, leaving little palatable alternative. Surely here as well the British pattern of selective appeasement is a viable example of what to do. Before getting into sinister incantations of enemy alliances, the basics. What is the purpose of American foreign policy and what is it about this purpose that will promote a Sino-Russian alliance?
 
Quote    Reply

HiloBill    RE:Paranoia is not a foriegn policy.   5/21/2005 5:44:04 PM
"It is difficult to imagine a less likely coalition of enemy powers than China and Russia, which have virtually nothing in common save for a fear of the United States. Therefore, I can?t imagine how or why this particular pair ?must? pose a strategic menace to our interests, save for the possibility that western policy corners them both, leaving little palatable alternative. Surely here as well the British pattern of selective appeasement is a viable example of what to do." The complextion of the threat that I believe exists does not lend itself to historical comparisons with the former British empire. TheFinalPhase.com's first piece is an "Introduction" to the thesis, not the full thesis itself, it gives only an initial context of material presented there. A full thesis would fill a book. However, a much deeper gist may be gleaned from the material presented there. The collection of references listed under the intro and the selected pieces contained throughout the site fulfill the purpose - at this stage anyway - of sufficiently addressing the complextion of the threat itself. There are many misconceptions, I believe, that are accepted as "fact," such as, that Russia and China "...have virtually nothing in common save for a fear of the United States." To be sure, the thesis posited at TheFinalPhase is FAR from any foreign policy the US has accepted - one purpose of the site is to try alerting policy makers of the errant path they're on in regards to Russia and China. Words like, "paranoid conspiracy" act as automatic door slammers to any open-minded discussion. They automatically trigger mindful dismissal. This is a very common "critique" of the issues presented at the site. ______________________ A reply to Displaced Jim's will be forthcoming, however this current post compelled me to give a separate reply prior to answering Jim's. Jim: I've read your reply, but it will take me a while to respond due to a number of unrelated things happening. Your points require a more in-depth reply. HB
 
Quote    Reply

glenn239    RE:Paranoia is not a foriegn policy, but it does sell magazines.   5/23/2005 12:47:57 PM
Q: TheFinalPhase.com's first piece is an "Introduction" to the thesis, not the full thesis itself, it gives only an initial context of material presented there. A full thesis would fill a book. A: Fair enough, but all I can go by is what is on the site. Q: Words like, "paranoid conspiracy" act as automatic door slammers to any open-minded discussion. They automatically trigger mindful dismissal. A: Then that is my fault for not being clear and concise. To be clear and concise on the point: The overall gist, or impression given by your website is one that the Chinese and the Russians would, if you were in power and calling the shots, find of EXTREME concern to them. The probable reaction would be to funnel tremendously more money into their defense budgets, adapt weapons programs, doctrines, and behaviors more anti-American than otherwise will be the case. Enemies would have been needlessly made, thus damaging American interests and endangering both her fighting forces and civilian infrastructure and populations. Otherwise friendly and powerful neutral nations such as France, Italy, Germany, Ukraine, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, South Korea, India, Japan, etc. would examine the rhetorical mess and come to conclusions that further damage American interests. There seems to be a failure to understand the difference between an enemy and a rival. Surely no one here is failing to comprehend matters such as what China is spending on her military, and what China COULD spend on her military? General comments: It is quite the website you've got there. And thanks for the heads up that it's non-profit - I for one would have had a more difficult time determining whether it was or wasn't for money based on a superficial perusal of the links, etc. Foreign policy analysis isn't an exercise in yellow, or jingoistic, journalism. It's the study of American means, objectives and priorities in a rapidly shifting global environment. Pictures of Islamic terrorists juxtaposed with snappy quotes from Sun Tzu take 2nd place, in my mind, to more mundane matters such as balancing the national budget, handling NATO expansion without alienating Moscow, procurement policy, etc. I'm certainly no expert on the process (nor have much interest in it), but I do have an idea of what the process probably looks like. If, for instance, you're concerned that China may invade Taiwan, then write an essay about how to deal with the problem. When the Russians announce they're selling to China the SS-27 ICBM and warhead system, I'll start to think more along your lines. But until then, it looks more like business as usual in the world than anything else. World War Two was unavoidable. World War One was a tragedy. Let's make certain conflict is inevitable before we wish for it.
 
Quote    Reply

HiloBill    Note   5/27/2005 6:52:47 PM
A short note just to let you know I haven't forgotten about the discussion here and that I'll be replying later. Both Glenn and Jim's response require something more than an off the cuff reply. (There are other things happening right now that need my attention.) Thanks for both of your replies. Aloha, HB
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics